No, I know what you are thinking (it's the Force. It allows me to do that), and no it isn't that.

It isn't castles, or air, or much of anything. Which, is exactly my point Space has no friction. So why on earth (rather, why in space...) do spaceships slow down when the loose power? The lack of anything in space (Gravity, air, clouds, ect) should mean that any and all Spaceships should keep moving at the smae velocity and speed and direction that they were heading when it lost power. I know of at least 2 specific instances in Star Wars books were this is the case (X-wing: Rouge Squadron, Heir to the Empire) and it rather bugs me.

Also, why the heck do ships always seem to have their engines on full thrust? one blast should be sufficient to get where they are going, assuming they are going in a straight line (Which they always seem to be, outside of combat situations) In battles it makes sense, for manouvering is something usefull when fighting. Which brings me to another point.

How can anything be out of range in space? A weapon when fired (Solid things specifically) should keep on going until they hit something. And it isn't as if there anything to block their sensors/detectors/bigger dishes Doesn't matter if it is 5 kilometers or 500,000. This, I might have a good theory for. If a Ship A fires on Ship B at a far enough distance, Ship B should have enough advance warning to simply move out of the way (Which is something you never see in movies) So it should really be called optimal firing range.

Admiral Netsooj wrote:No, I know what you are thinking (it's the Force. It allows me to do that), and no it isn't that.

It isn't castles, or air, or much of anything. Which, is exactly my point Space has no friction. So why on earth (rather, why in space...) do spaceships slow down when the loose power? The lack of anything in space (Gravity, air, clouds, ect) should mean that any and all Spaceships should keep moving at the smae velocity and speed and direction that they were heading when it lost power. I know of at least 2 specific instances in Star Wars books were this is the case (X-wing: Rouge Squadron, Heir to the Empire) and it rather bugs me.

Also, why the heck do ships always seem to have their engines on full thrust? one blast should be sufficient to get where they are going, assuming they are going in a straight line (Which they always seem to be, outside of combat situations) In battles it makes sense, for manouvering is something usefull when fighting. Which brings me to another point.

How can anything be out of range in space? A weapon when fired (Solid things specifically) should keep on going until they hit something. And it isn't as if there anything to block their sensors/detectors/bigger dishes Doesn't matter if it is 5 kilometers or 500,000. This, I might have a good theory for. If a Ship A fires on Ship B at a far enough distance, Ship B should have enough advance warning to simply move out of the way (Which is something you never see in movies) So it should really be called optimal firing range.

I understand your rant. But in both star wars and star trek (and a lot of other universes) there is the typical "Inertia Dampener" which provides the atmospheric type manuevering and slowing. I have read instances in book where it is claimed only smaller craft such as star fighters and gunships use it the most. But the movies show capital ships use it.

Battlestar galatica shows a bit of real life physics. Far as the engine power goes, small starfighters often use fuel not a reactor to power their systems, hence the engines always seeming to be on, or the power is relatively low and thus a constant thrust is needed, and then there is inertia dampeners, and gravity. Lots of cases you can point at. More than I am willing to type .

Most of it can be explained someway if you dig deep enough, I have been playing rpg's and video games based in scifi for a long time.

For weapons, the range is limited to the detectable range of the attacker (i.e. sensor range) and line of sight. Well, decoys and stealth too.Projectile weapons only lose strength so to speak when acted upon by a another force (gravity, etc). Energy weapons do lose power over distances, but looong distances. Plus there is accuray dependent on range. But in the star wars gvideo ames it was about 2.5km.. But books claim lasers and turbolaser firing off capital ships well into 10km or 20km.

If you want some info, check out the role playing game: Heavy Gear by Dream Pod 9, their Tactical Space supplementhttp://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=1280&it=1 book. It is a very detailed and follows real life physics for space combat in the 62nd centuray.If you want real life like physics for a sci fi game. I've played it for years, the game Heavy Gear is very very realistic anyways.

And of course you come down to the main thing why ships in space fly like planes - When science fiction was first written....autthors didnt know what it was like in space and we as people feel more natural as a water or atmosphere based movement. Star Trek is guilty of this.

1. There is technically tons of stuff in space, like dust and microgravity. Is it enough to stop spaceships? ...no... but I do remember the inertial dampener, which is the reasoning behind this one.

2. BSG is the best example of occasional thrust, for sure. I think spaceships just look like they're always on; they all have glowing engines for style and not function.

3. Heat loss. The plasma weapons that are typical in sci-fi require a certain temperature to maintain the shape and dangerousness, so in space, they lose that energy after a while. Remember that ion cannon in ESB that knocked out an orbiting star destroyer? It had to be big so it could shoot at that 60-70 mi range.

Admiral Netsooj wrote:Hmmm, and here I always though intertial dampers were something that was used to keep people from splatting into the walls, then slowing down the ship... Hmmm, I never thought of that....

BSG is (As much as any Sci-Fi show can get) is quite realistic in the way they show the ships moving. I mean, has anyone watched those Vipers and Raptors?

Seems I wasn't fully aware of all the made up physics in all those shows. Guess I am not as geeky as some people.

Well you are right. Inertial dampers do both that. Protect people and slow the ships down. I dont quite remember off hand how the Star Trek or Star Wars encyclopedia explains it.

I am kinda of a techhead when it comes to rpgs and scifi shows. Yes I always liked watching the vipers on both the old and new BSG. The Wing Commander movie did a decent job on the physics as well. Rapiers have the engines on a pivoting point that allows for some pretty awesome moves in combat.

The fact that they slow down is due to attempted realism. They make it seem earth-like in a sense that things slow down when their is no thrust. But that is only realistic because we are years/decades/scores/centuries away from Space Travel, and we know only what we witness. Besides that fact, space travel must become normal to all humans alike in order to fully understand thee concept. So it gives us realistic-unrealism.

Sir Michael Le Fanu wrote:The fact that they slow down is due to attempted realism. They make it seem earth-like in a sense that things slow down when their is no thrust. But that is only realistic because we are years/decades/scores/centuries away from Space Travel, and we know only what we witness. Besides that fact, space travel must become normal to all humans alike in order to fully understand thee concept. So it gives us realistic-unrealism.

This is an interesting concept. Kind of get it, but kind of don't.I understand what you mean by they seem to slow down when there is no thrust, but what about when they completely stop?

MTronHeroKodiak wrote:I understand what you mean by they seem to slow down when there is no thrust, but what about when they completely stop?

I do believe that it relates to my same theory, but if not, there's always reverse thrust.

*Every space transportation form has tiny little reverse thrusters that slow it down.* Lie. I read this on a 'newbie Wookiepedia page' that some little kid made on Wookiepedia.

PSI thought this was kinda funny, anyway...

I was on Brickipedia and one of the recently edited posts was titled:'Battle of Endor Lego set'unlike the traditional:'set #, set name template.' So I click on it to request deletion, and it reads:'This is my favrit Lego set I ever got. I got it in chismas and it took me and my mom 2 and and s haf ours to build it. I think evryone shood get this set.'

MTronHeroKodiak wrote:I understand what you mean by they seem to slow down when there is no thrust, but what about when they completely stop?

I do believe that it relates to my same theory, but if not, there's always reverse thrust.

*Every space transportation form has tiny little reverse thrusters that slow it down.* Lie. I read this on a 'newbie Wookiepedia page' that some little kid made on Wookiepedia.

PSI thought this was kinda funny, anyway...

I was on Brickipedia and one of the recently edited posts was titled:'Battle of Endor Lego set'unlike the traditional:'set #, set name template.' So I click on it to request deletion, and it reads:'This is my favrit Lego set I ever got. I got it in chismas and it took me and my mom 2 and and s haf ours to build it. I think evryone shood get this set.'

DERP

LOL that is funny. Small little attitude/manuvering thrusters don't have that much power, and I can only think of one or maybe two ships that actually (in star wars mind you) that has thrusters like that.But after some thought I see where you are coming from. I usually just chock it up to interial dampers.

I laugh but I recently ran into a 35 year old dude who would talk/type like that, I originaly thought it was a kid. And he was trying to scam me out of 300 dollars.That's besides the point, going off track.Trying to explain the physics and why the way sci fi ships move in space is like trying to lead a horse to water and get him to drink. Only analogy I can think of. Good discussion though.